... it appears that misinterpretation and misapplication of EIA data is continuing.

As far as I can can tell, this process of mythological interpretation is the basis for the cornerstone claim in a new report from the site Climate Central, that there is a "nearly 9 percent reduction in annual carbon emissions in the U.S. since 2005." (first sentence of executive summary)

The misinterpretation of EIA data is what establishes the false premise of the report:

As reported by Joe Romm at Climate Progress, propagation of the EIA's own misrepresentation of its own underlying findings and data now appears to have reached the COP18 international climate negotiations in Doha, which have started this week.

The bogus conclusion spun up from the now-famous, should-be-infamous EIA graph carries on at full speed, to date, in unsupported statements like this at the Guardian (UK):

"Greenhouse gas emissions from the US have fallen sharply in recent years, owing to the replacement of coal-fired power generation by gas in the US, following its widespread adoption of shale gas."- Doha 2012: US claims 'enormous' efforts to cut carbon emissionshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -emissions

The EIA graph which has been the source of such confusion in fact shows only declining emissions from “energy consumption”, which leaves out energy production and supply chain emissions. (In addition to all non-energy emissions, like the effect of industrial clearcutting in our temperate rain forest.)This is critical because the lower emissions from energy consumption reported by the EIA are largely due to the price-driven shift from coal to natural gas.

But natural gas a serious problem with methane leakage on the production and distribution side of the equation.

So in terms of actual energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, the terms used to tout the EIA graph are fundamentally wrong.

THE EIA GRAPH DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE AN OVERALL DECLINE IN US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – NOT EVEN JUST FROM THE ENERGY SECTOR.

The table of data on gas flaring provided by the EIA goes through 2010, while the "emissions from energy consumption" are being reported through 2011, with estimates through 2012:

"EIA expects carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, which fell by 2.3 percent in 2011, to further decline by 2.4 percent in 2012. However, projected emissions increase by 2.8 percent in 2013, as coal regains some of its electric‐power‐generation market share."Short-Term Energy Outlook, September 2012U.S. Energy Information Administrationhttp://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/archives/Sep12.pdf

Interesting and useful. What does it mean about the bigger picture?

1) The EIA has also confirmed for us that they are not including flaring emissions in the "emissions from energy consumption."

2) Methane emissions during natural gas production and distribution are also not included in the "emissions from energy consumption." And this methane leakage is measured to be about twice as big as reported by the fossil fuel companies, as reported in recent independent published research.

3) Because methane emissions are 25 times more potent in terms of their greenhouse gas insulating effect, over the time period of a human generation, than natural gas emissions, leaving them out would make meaningless a picture trying to show overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, our original findings continue to stand:

U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use < U.S. CO2 emissions from energy use (consumption) < U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions < U.S. energy-related GHG emissions < U.S. total GHG emissions

Yes, the EIA has documented that "U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use" have fallen modestly in recent years.